The Da Vinci Code Claims that the four Gospels were selected by Constantine from eighty others. Brown writes: 'Constantine commissioned and financed
a new Bible, which omitted those gospels that spoke of Christ's human traits and embellished those gospels that made Him godlike. The earlier gospels
were outlawed, gathered up, and burned' (p. 317). Or again: 'More than eighty gospels were considered for the New Testament, and yet only a relative
few were chosen for inclusion' (p. 313).

The Da Vinci Code Claims that the four Gospels were selected by Constantine from eighty others. Brown writes: 'Constantine commissioned and financed
a new Bible, which omitted those gospels that spoke of Christ's human traits and embellished those gospels that made Him godlike. The earlier gospels
were outlawed, gathered up, and burned' (p. 317). Or again: 'More than eighty gospels were considered for the New Testament, and yet only a relative
few were chosen for inclusion' (p. 313).

This is wrong. Many early Christian texts written well before Constantine's time say that there are and can be only four authoritative Gospels.
Irenaeus, who died in around AD200, over a century before Constantine's reign, writes this in his great work Against the Heresies:

"It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. For, since there are four zones of the world in which we
live, and four principal winds, while the church is scattered throughout all the world [...] it is fitting that she should have four pillars [...].
From which fact, it is evident that the Word, [...] who was manifested to men, has given us the Gospel under four aspects, but bound together by one
Spirit." (III. xi. 8; Ante-Nicene Fathers, 1:428)

first i will say that if you can not beleive in christ then how can you beleive in something some one has wrtten 1500-2000 years after the death of
him?

a little snippet for you,

Eusebius, who was easily the most notorious documentary revisionist of his time, thoughtfully complied. We do not know which books of the hundreds
available that he supplied the emperor, nor how much he revised them (since many are not known from texts earlier than Eusebius), but we do know that
Eusebius realized that it was only a matter of time before the "inspired oracles" as he called them, would have to be gathered together for
Christians to study in common worldwide in the form of a scriptural library, a bible. We also know that Eusebius was deeply worried about the
contradictions they contained and the political dynamite that could ensue should those contradictions become a matter of dispute among the masses, or,
far worse, in the mind of the Emperor. We do know that Eusebius did, in fact, make extensive modifications of the works he was concerned about, as we
have a few earlier texts with which to compare some of his work. As correlation and standardization were the orders of the day (under the
less-than-gentle hand of the Council of Nicea), Eusebius could clearly see a very Imperial problem was brewing, and was determined to head it off if
he could. Eusebius' revisionism is particularly unfortunate for modern scholars, in that the only versions we have of many early Christian documents
are ones known to have passed through his scrutiny.

Everyone had their list of favorite books and letters; the various factions, with headquarters in Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Caesaria, Jerusalem,
Alexandria and Carthage all had their own ideas as to what was or should be scripture. And they certainly didn't agree, in spite of the heavy hand of
the Council of Nicea. Eventually, after the split with Rome, the compilation of Eusebius was to become the standard bible of the Eastern church. No
doubt on his mind was the docetic heresy of the Marcionites, still a thorn in the side of the Roman as well as Eastern churches. The strongly
anti-docetic message of the four gospels favored by Iraneus no doubt played a role in their inclusion.

for me the bible is just a guide. Many other gospels and scripture are available for reading on the net. Only the most important parts were put into
the bible, yes there were many problems when the bible was put together but it is a guide to the christian faith like i said. There is a lot more to
it.

No, I did not know Oprah said those things. Does she same them on her show? In her magazine?

Frankly, I don't care what she thinks about religion, as long as she isn't shoving her views down my throat constantly. Maybe she does, and I just
haven't been paying attention.

And is Oprah the kind of person one would go to for religious advice? Does she have that much influence over people's spiritual beliefs?

What is the point of this post?

As a proud atheist, I don't care what Oprah thinks about any religion or prophet. As long as she isn't advocating violence or hatred toward any
group of people she can say and think whatever she wants.

Other people believe many diffent things.
Your opinion or beleif system may or may not be correct.
With some points you have I would agree, some points I would not.
Also a TV moderator promoting certain views may not beleive whats being televised, sure it makes them shallow, but not the person who came up with the
whole idea.

So then if you believe that her false beliefs will send her to hell, then try and save her if you can't then ignore her, please do not complain to us
about it.

i agree to almost everything what Oprah Winfrey says, except that homosexuality is wonderful (cause its brain disorder, nothing wonderful at all) and
about abortions. rest of it - totally fine new age (not medieval-like) thinking. go go go Oprah Winfrey!

She is merely part of the mass mind programming effort in order to prepare us for project greenstar (blue beam). It's been going on for years, but it
is starting to get a little more noticeable now what with the all the UFO coverage worldwide and Edgar Mitchell's recent statement.

The Da Vinci Code Claims that the four Gospels were selected by Constantine from eighty others. Brown writes: 'Constantine commissioned and financed
a new Bible, which omitted those gospels that spoke of Christ's human traits and embellished those gospels that made Him godlike. The earlier gospels
were outlawed, gathered up, and burned' (p. 317). Or again: 'More than eighty gospels were considered for the New Testament, and yet only a relative
few were chosen for inclusion' (p. 313).

The Da Vinci Code Claims that the four Gospels were selected by Constantine from eighty others. Brown writes: 'Constantine commissioned and financed
a new Bible, which omitted those gospels that spoke of Christ's human traits and embellished those gospels that made Him godlike. The earlier gospels
were outlawed, gathered up, and burned' (p. 317). Or again: 'More than eighty gospels were considered for the New Testament, and yet only a relative
few were chosen for inclusion' (p. 313).

This is wrong. Many early Christian texts written well before Constantine's time say that there are and can be only four authoritative Gospels.
Irenaeus, who died in around AD200, over a century before Constantine's reign, writes this in his great work Against the Heresies:

"It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. For, since there are four zones of the world in which we
live, and four principal winds, while the church is scattered throughout all the world [...] it is fitting that she should have four pillars [...].
From which fact, it is evident that the Word, [...] who was manifested to men, has given us the Gospel under four aspects, but bound together by one
Spirit." (III. xi. 8; Ante-Nicene Fathers, 1:428)

Christianity was still a cult ridiculed by Romans - the division in the city threatened the future of the Empire - Constantine called for a single
religion in an attempt to sure up the Empire -

The Church subsequently amassed vast wealth by offering forgiveness of sins through financial contributions, entrance into heaven and the right to
remain there for massive contributions.

This nefarious practice allowed the Church to become the most powerful entity on earth - to this day - the basis of which relied on convincing people
of the dangers of heaven, hell and that only obeying the will of the Church (aka "God" - ) and making huge financial sacrifices and contributions
could the wrath of hell be avoided.

Not a bad plan - and one that anyone who believes is gullible in the extreme.

Dan Brown’s fictional best seller, The Da Vinci Code, sat at the top of the best seller’s list for weeks. Goddess worshippers and Christian
haters around the globe have not only given it rave reviews, but offer it up as proof that Christianity is a lie. You might be wondering how a
fiction novel can have such an impact. It can because Brown makes the claim that the book is based on fact. In bold letters in the front of the book
Brown alerts the reader that what they are about to read, while being a fictional story, is based on historical fact. Many have argued that we
shouldn’t be so concerned about a work of fiction, and in one sense they are right. If people knew their history, their Bibles, and studied their
own religion thoroughly, we wouldn’t need to be concerned about this book. However, many of the numerous factual errors and boldface lies in
Brown’s books won’t be obvious to the general public.

The Above Top Secret Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.